Douglas Murray says, perhaps with good reason, that this is what we must expect when we take religion and its old fashioned rules and certainties away from those unprepared to live without them. They just make a new religion, centered on all good things like rights, rights and more rights. Perhaps we should bring back the Church Militant, instantiate a crusade or two, and get back into the swing of things. I'm guessing blue hair would automatically qualify the owner as a witch?

d4m10n wrote: ↑
"The objective of this book is to define social justice so that readers may be better able to identify it when it masquerades as patriotism, nationalism, or progressivism.” — Noah Rothman

As I recall, it used to be illegal to look into a window at a nude person; if the one outside was a 'peeping tom' male & the naked one inside female...
but it was 'indecent exposure' if the one outside was female, with a naked guy who didn't close his curtain.

Expending zero effort to verify my guess, I predict the 'upskirting' law brings-back the same double-standard.

Will it be illegal to photograph a man, out in public, with his nuts hanging-out of his bathrobe?

Yeah, good for her. Moot of course what her chances are, but the case will at least highlight some of the problems with the platform. Murphy has a webpage up asking for donations, and I see some links there to some fairly high profile articles, including one at the Wall Street Journal. That article is paywalled of course, but it must be causing a bit of consternation - one hopes at least - in Twitter's Board Room.

But that egregiously bogus "idea" of misgendering has to be part and parcel of the whole clusterfuck of transgenderism - saw that Jack Dorsey referenced it in his recent Twitter conversation at #karajack:

Service Dog wrote: ↑
As I recall, it used to be illegal to look into a window at a nude person; if the one outside was a 'peeping tom' male & the naked one inside female...
but it was 'indecent exposure' if the one outside was female, with a naked guy who didn't close his curtain.

Expending zero effort to verify my guess, I predict the 'upskirting' law brings-back the same double-standard.

Will it be illegal to photograph a man, out in public, with his nuts hanging-out of his bathrobe?

As it stands the legislation would have to protect muslims or Scotsmen in traditional dress. Or anyone identifying as female.

screwtape wrote: ↑
Douglas Murray says, perhaps with good reason, that this is what we must expect when we take religion and its old fashioned rules and certainties away from those unprepared to live without them. They just make a new religion, centered on all good things like rights, rights and more rights. Perhaps we should bring back the Church Militant, instantiate a crusade or two, and get back into the swing of things. I'm guessing blue hair would automatically qualify the owner as a witch?

Despite the warm feeling of nostalgia for a time that didn't quite exist as we like to remember it - I don't think religion is what it once was, and most likely will have to adapt to the current climate (rather than the other way round). It's managed to in the past, after all. "You Can't Go Home Again" and all that. (To quote an author of a different stripe).

Service Dog wrote: ↑
As I recall, it used to be illegal to look into a window at a nude person; if the one outside was a 'peeping tom' male & the naked one inside female...
but it was 'indecent exposure' if the one outside was female, with a naked guy who didn't close his curtain.

Expending zero effort to verify my guess, I predict the 'upskirting' law brings-back the same double-standard.

Will it be illegal to photograph a man, out in public, with his nuts hanging-out of his bathrobe?

Peeping tom laws are predicated on the "expectation of privacy". Generally, there is no expectation of privacy in public. So if a naked girl or dude approaches you in public you can pull out your camera and record away. Presumably "upskirt" laws constrain this to prevent deliberate violations of privacy

Service Dog wrote: ↑
As I recall, it used to be illegal to look into a window at a nude person; if the one outside was a 'peeping tom' male & the naked one inside female...
but it was 'indecent exposure' if the one outside was female, with a naked guy who didn't close his curtain.

Expending zero effort to verify my guess, I predict the 'upskirting' law brings-back the same double-standard.

Will it be illegal to photograph a man, out in public, with his nuts hanging-out of his bathrobe?

It's all predicated on reasonable expectation of privacy. If a butt naked guy or girl walks past you in public you can take out your camera and film them all day. Same goes for some exhibitionist standing behind a picture window. If you happen to see them or capture them on camera, tough titty for them (provided you're on public property and haven't trespassed to some private vantage point). There's nothing illegal per se about peering into a private dwelling. If there were, tens of thousands of people would be subject to arrest each day.

It's illegal to spy on someone when they have reasonable expectation of privacy, when they're undressing, showering, taking a shit, having sex, etc. By the same token, it's illegal to roll an upskirt camera around or on a selfie stick for the express purpose of viewing their privates.

If a person hasn't taken adequate measures to make things private, things get murky. For instance, what if a couple are turned on at the thought of exhibitionistically having sex on their lawn or behind a picture window open to the public? Should anyone who happens to see them be subject to prosecution? That would be "unreasonable" expectation of privacy.

Yes, this is pretty retarded. Omar is clearly using some SocJus tropes about how intersexual differences in muscle strength are just a social construct. And yes, coming from a muslim who thinks that muslim shouldn't celebrate Christmas, or that the Jews control American politics, this is absurd and funny.

I guess this is what you get when an ostensibly progressive party rejects science and progressive values to cater to queer theorists and elect a hijabi because she's "authentically muslim".

Then again electing shit stirrers with anti-scientific and bigoted ideas who use their religious identity as a shield from criticism is a long American tradition.

Recently they elected as president an anti-vaxxer who believes that CFCs aren't a big deal because he sprays gis hair in a door with no windows, and that anthropogenic global warming is a Chinese conspiracy.

He also thinks that Republican Jews control at least the Republican party.

And some religious nuts think he's God's gift to America, or even that his spray-tan is a sign of God's grace.

Sadly, I'm mostly Ligurian and we all got our collective asses kicked by Augustus 2000 years ago. Bastard even built a monument to celebrate. And of course, I have to ride bellow that bitch every open day of the week. I still love it, though, beautiful remains.

You may be a Ligurian, but you can very probably see an issue with our national news at the moment.

1. Giant Quebec construction company allegedly offers bribes to win contracts in Libya.
2. This is noticed, and is against all sorts of rules.
3. Prosecution is initiated in Canada, since we have some of those rules.
4. Prime Minister who fails to understand most things, and especially that he cannot legally shield Quebecois companies from illegal behaviour, suggests/implies/hints/tells/orders/commands -any verb other than "directs" - the Attorney General of Canada to get the Crown Prosecution Service to lay off said large Quebecois construction company, and send the case to a non-criminal remedial justice arrangement.
5. This bit is imagined, but I and every other Canadian assumes the Attorney General said "No, I can't do that."
6. Attorney General is fired, and demoted to Minister of Veterans Affairs. We all know by now that Canada hates its veterans.
7. The Globe & Mail gets leaks from the Prime Minister's Office that dirty business is afoot and publishes articles to the effect of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above.
8. Prime Minister says repeatedly he did not "direct" the Attorney General to go easy on large Quebecois company. Other verbs (suggests/implies/hints/tells/orders/commands) are still on the table. Also, the fact that the demoted Attorney General is still in cabinet is a sign that all of this is false.
9. This bit is also assumed: ex-Attorney General is asked to back up the Prime Minister, but feels she cannot do so.
10. Ex-Attorney General resigns as Veterans Affairs minister, with a resignation letter thanking Canadians, but not the PM who appointed her, and talking of her desire to see politics performed differently, which is work that shall and must continue, and that she has hired an ex-Supreme Court Justice to advise her on what she is allowed to say about the solicitor-client privilege implicit in her work as Attorney General.
11. Prime Minister says he can't understand why she resigned, and if there was any pressure on her to do anything improper as Attorney General, she failed in her duties by not bringing that pressure to his attention.

I confess I voted for Trudeau as a way of getting rid of Harper, but would my disgust with Harper be less or more than my disgust with Trudeau four and a half years later? I don't know, but I shall vote this fall for whichever candidate locally will win without being a Trudeau Liberal. I like Bernier, but don't want to split the anti-Trudeau vote, so it will probably be Scheer, despite his repulsive lizard nature. Perhaps it's ridiculous, but I've voted for members from the NDP on the left to the Conservatives on the right (Labour, SDP and Maggie's Tories in the UK too!) simply to get rid of a government. I suspect it makes more sense to vote to be rid of a government than to vote for the one you want; you know who and what you are voting out. Those you vote in are only promises that may or may not materialise.

With all PR build-up to her appointment, she must have been an absolute complete disaster, fixing to get everyone killed. Or she banged her wingman.

Super hawt, tho. Even better than Burzhum's IDF vixen:

Kotnick.jpg

The rumor is opioids. A good portion of my chess club is stationed at McChord AFB, actively serving. If she was banging her wing-woman or wingman, that would have been privately buried and forgotten. But very hot.

You may be a Ligurian, but you can very probably see an issue with our national news at the moment.

1. Giant Quebec construction company allegedly offers bribes to win contracts in Libya.
2. This is noticed, and is against all sorts of rules.
3. Prosecution is initiated in Canada, since we have some of those rules.
4. Prime Minister who fails to understand most things, and especially that he cannot legally shield Quebecois companies from illegal behaviour, suggests/implies/hints/tells/orders/commands -any verb other than "directs" - the Attorney General of Canada to get the Crown Prosecution Service to lay off said large Quebecois construction company, and send the case to a non-criminal remedial justice arrangement.
5. This bit is imagined, but I and every other Canadian assumes the Attorney General said "No, I can't do that."
6. Attorney General is fired, and demoted to Minister of Veterans Affairs. We all know by now that Canada hates its veterans.
7. The Globe & Mail gets leaks from the Prime Minister's Office that dirty business is afoot and publishes articles to the effect of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 above.
8. Prime Minister says repeatedly he did not "direct" the Attorney General to go easy on large Quebecois company. Other verbs (suggests/implies/hints/tells/orders/commands) are still on the table. Also, the fact that the demoted Attorney General is still in cabinet is a sign that all of this is false.
9. This bit is also assumed: ex-Attorney General is asked to back up the Prime Minister, but feels she cannot do so.
10. Ex-Attorney General resigns as Veterans Affairs minister, with a resignation letter thanking Canadians, but not the PM who appointed her, and talking of her desire to see politics performed differently, which is work that shall and must continue, and that she has hired an ex-Supreme Court Justice to advise her on what she is allowed to say about the solicitor-client privilege implicit in her work as Attorney General.
11. Prime Minister says he can't understand why she resigned, and if there was any pressure on her to do anything improper as Attorney General, she failed in her duties by not bringing that pressure to his attention.

I confess I voted for Trudeau as a way of getting rid of Harper, but would my disgust with Harper be less or more than my disgust with Trudeau four and a half years later? I don't know, but I shall vote this fall for whichever candidate locally will win without being a Trudeau Liberal. I like Bernier, but don't want to split the anti-Trudeau vote, so it will probably be Scheer, despite his repulsive lizard nature. Perhaps it's ridiculous, but I've voted for members from the NDP on the left to the Conservatives on the right (Labour, SDP and Maggie's Tories in the UK too!) simply to get rid of a government. I suspect it makes more sense to vote to be rid of a government than to vote for the one you want; you know who and what you are voting out. Those you vote in are only promises that may or may not materialise.

TL;DR: Trudeau is a shit. Just like his dad.

Well, young Trudeau is not like his dad in many ways. He does not have his IQ for starters but more important he seems to lack a certain panache. As they say in Quebec "Son père était brillant, mais ne l'est pas!".

No "fuddle duddle", pirouettes or anything like that. The closest he has ever come to père was when he accidentally elbowed some bint in the tit(s) but then he ruined it by issuing an abject apology afterwards. I do not see père apologising ever. I suspect he would have told them to "fuddle duddle" themselves.

Me, I think he should have doubled down at the time and elbowed every single one of those cunts who were playing the childish "block them so they can not sit down" game. Failing that a kick to their nethers would have been more than acceptable.

KiwiInOz wrote: ↑
Clementine Ford discovers that toxic femininity is real after watching Married at First Sight.

I watch that show regularly. It is a show that both my wife and I enjoy. Haha. We also like Survivor and Head of Household. I guess we are pretty low-brow and enjoy watching people embarrass and belittle themselves for fame and money.

John D wrote: ↑
I watch that show regularly. It is a show that both my wife and I enjoy. Haha. We also like Survivor and Head of Household. I guess we are pretty low-brow and enjoy watching people embarrass and belittle themselves for fame and money.